12 year old Aboriginal girl described as being

September 12, 2003 6:11 AM

12 year old Aboriginal girl described as being "sexually aggressive"by Judge Fred Kovatch in a Saskatchewan court yesterday. Since the girl was raised in an abusive home, the judge concluded that she was partially responsible for three young white men picking her up, giving her beer and sexually assaulting her on a desolate country road.
posted by KathyK (65 comments total)

What's the age of consent in SK? Does Canada have the same set of laws surrounding children and sex (i.e. no matter what the child does or says, they can't legally consent to having sex until they reach a certain age)?

If Canada has such laws, and 12 is under the age described for SK, I don't quite understand how the judge ruled in this case.
posted by thanotopsis at 6:21 AM on September 12, 2003

Kovatch was the defense lawyer for two young men who beat up Pamela Jean George, a 28 year old Cree woman, to death in April 1995. In that case, the victim allegedly contributed to her own demise. (for an analysis of the George case, read Sherene Razack's article, "Genered racial violence and spatialized justice: The murder of Pamela George". (2000) Canadian Journal of Law and Society 15 (2), 91-130.
posted by KathyK at 6:22 AM on September 12, 2003

Native people in Saskatchewan have my blessing if tehy want to stage a revolution and overthrow the justice system there. Between this and police officers dumping native people outside of town in the middle of winter to freeze to death I hae to say I'm quite taken aback.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:35 AM on September 12, 2003

It doesn't take a lot of analysis to understand that this Kovatch guy should be gang-raped on a desolate country road in order to be able to make more informed decisions in the future
posted by acrobat at 6:41 AM on September 12, 2003

Well, it's Canada. Once you start being tolerant there's no end to it.
posted by jfuller at 7:05 AM on September 12, 2003

I get the feeling that this case has much more backstory than what is in the article. The "abusive home" => "sexual predator" analysis is too large a jump in logic for a judge to make.
posted by mischief at 7:05 AM on September 12, 2003

Well the story is light on details. For instance, what constitutes sexual assault in this case? Clearly it wasn't rape, or gang rape, so what was it? Groping?
If she was cited as being the "sexual agressor" why was that? Did she strip off and foist her person on the men?

This is less news and more partially-overheard conversation, I don't see how anyone can comment on it in a worthwhile way.

[Insert shock and outrage at child sexual assualt here]
posted by Blue Stone at 7:17 AM on September 12, 2003

Blue Stone. . .

I think that there is more than enough to comment on.

1. She was 12.

2. She was gang-raped

The whole "what constitutes sexual assault?" is clearly answered, and it is a bullshit line of questioning to go down. The reason why it is worth discussing is because the judge is blaming a twelve year old girl for getting raped because she was "Sexually aggressive" as soon as she says "no" once, it is RAPE.

If you google for this case, people all over the Web are talking about this. It is disgusting in this day and age that we are still having rape victims go on trial during these types of trials. Because of this, many rape victims do not even report the crime.

Because of the "we don't have enough evidence" people (ahem), 12 year old girls who are gang raped do not see justice.
posted by Quartermass at 7:35 AM on September 12, 2003

Well, it's Canada. Once you start being tolerant there's no end to it.

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Crazy foreigners! What a riot!!!!!!!
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:45 AM on September 12, 2003

I admit that the story is light on details. A further search uncovers some more details.

She is a victim of previous sexual abuse and, as a pediatrician testified in the case, sex abuse victims are known to show "unpredictable sexual behaviour". A DNA sample from her underwear showed traces of semen, likely to be of the father's, and there was testimony in the trial that she had been sexually abused since age 2. The judge concluded that this general psychological profile and the fact that she "initiated sexual conduct" by sitting on Edmondston's lap and kissing him didn't merit the usual jail term of three years.

Instead, he gets a conditional term of two years house arrest. His two buddies, who also tried to have sex with her while Edmondson held her down, were not convicted.

I'm not sure if she was physically raped as all three men were unable to sustain an erection.
posted by KathyK at 7:48 AM on September 12, 2003

The 89-pound girl had run away from home after an argument with her mom, hitched a ride with three strangers who gave her 5 beers and she ended up kissing one of them on their lap. I don't see that as grounds for calling a 12 year old girl as being "sexually aggressive".
posted by KathyK at 7:57 AM on September 12, 2003

Um, hello. She's 12.
Twelve!

It's rape.
posted by Outlawyr at 10:31 AM on September 12, 2003

Last time I checked, "having two buddies hold her down for you" didn't tend to fall in the consensual category, no matter the sexual history of the victim.
posted by headspace at 10:52 AM on September 12, 2003

Quartermass If she was gang-raped, why was the perpetrator convicted of sexual assault and not rape? Nowhere in the article does it state that she was raped. It's not as if there's a ration on the word "rape" that prevented it being used.

No penetration took place. From KathyK's second link:
"Outside the truck, Mr. Edmondson attempted to have sex with her but could not get an erection. His companions also tried unsuccessfully to have intercourse with her."

Like I said the original article was so insubstantial, it was impossible to knowlegeably comment on.

Also, she lied about her age, and the men likely took her for older. What? 15? 16? I don't know. But it all makes a difference and helps explain the sentence.
posted by Blue Stone at 10:56 AM on September 12, 2003

here is an article with more details (Globe and Mail)
posted by Quartermass at 10:59 AM on September 12, 2003

Penetration or not, the act was attempted. Its not as if they didn't try to.
posted by Quartermass at 11:01 AM on September 12, 2003

Last time I checked, "having two buddies hold her down for you" didn't tend to fall in the consensual category, no matter the sexual history of the victim.

Where does it say that happened?
posted by stifford at 11:08 AM on September 12, 2003

The girl's enraged father walked out of the courthouse and punched in the headlights of his own van before being led away by supporters

I bet her mom is glad she was unavailable at the time.


Some good lines from the 2nd article

Mr. Edmondson and two friends were drinking heavily and driving on country roads near Tisdale

Outside the truck, Mr. Edmondson attempted to have sex with her but could not get an erection.

His companions also tried unsuccessfully to have intercourse with her.

Things to ponder?

On Thursday, Mr. Kovach noted that this sexual assault was on the more severe end of the spectrum

But if we review the above quotes, none of them actually were able to complete the act. How does it qualify as "one on the more severe end of the spectrum?" Would not a rape that actually was comitted/completed be more "severe" then one that was not actually completed?

But he then cited earlier testimony suggesting the girl was frequently abused by her father Hmmm, the headlights come to mind here.

and lied about her age Uh oh. How old did she say she was? And could she have actually passed for it? To 3 heavily stewed guys she may have. I didn't see this guys age anywhere, they only say "young." If he was say 18 at the time, and she lied and said she was 16....?
posted by a3matrix at 11:13 AM on September 12, 2003

She had told them that she was 14 (nearly 15), which apparently is the legal age to consent for sex in Saskatchewan. Kovatch told the jury that the two accused friends, Brown and Kindrat, could not be found guilty if they took reasonable steps to determine the girl's age and honestly believed that she was 14.

Yet another story here.

stifford: This article says "he [Edmondston] then held her" for his two friends to try and have sex with her.
posted by KathyK at 11:17 AM on September 12, 2003

If Dad's semen was found in her underwear, why was he walking around a free man, punching out headlights and cheered by supporters?
posted by five fresh fish at 11:23 AM on September 12, 2003

Dean Edmondson is 26.
Jeffrey Brown is 25
Jeffrey Kindrat is 21.

I think they're old enough to know better and should not have been set free (in the case of Brown and Kindrat) nor given a lenient sentence (in the case of Edmonston).
posted by KathyK at 11:24 AM on September 12, 2003

Thanks KathyK (I just hadn't seen that mentioned in any of the early links.)

FFF, that's what I was also wondering.
posted by stifford at 11:25 AM on September 12, 2003

Well, what exactly was attempted? Headspace says the two other men held her down. I can't find that detail in any of the articles.

So what we had was three young men picking up a girl who said she was older than 12, [and there's nothing to say they didn't believe her] going and getting drunk and trying to have sex. I can find no mention of force. From what is stated, there is no mention the girl said "no," [as has been stated in this thread] or that there was any sort of intimidation or physical force used.

[On preview, Kathy K's third link [!!!] states "that he then held her for his two friends" Though it's not stated whether the nature of this holding was to restrain a girl who wanted to get away, or whether it was a non-abusive holding.]

It seems to me, in spite of the hysterical use of the word "rape" here on the thread, that even the word "assault" is used in a lawful and technical sense rather than an actual sense, since there is no mention of the girl's actions regarding the initiation of sexual activity [I fully expect it to appear in KathyK's future links. :) ]

It's almost as if once "12 year old," "sexual assault," and "walk free" are used, a blinding mist comes down over people's eyes.

It's almost as if BrassEye's "Paedogeddon" had never been aired.
posted by Blue Stone at 11:26 AM on September 12, 2003

I think in criminal cases intent should count for quite a bit. In this case the men's intent was to gang rape a 12 year old girl.

If someone tries to rob a bank, but botches it and runs off after threatening a teller with a gun, it's still bank robbery.

The girl is lucky they couldn't keep an erection. But I don't think it should be lucky for them.
posted by y6y6y6 at 11:28 AM on September 12, 2003

More information [from one of KathyK's later links]:


"Justice Fred Kovach noted the girl told the men she was nearly 15 and there was no evidence that she was forced into their truck or coerced into drinking beer. The legal age for consent to sex is 14."

14 is how old she told the men she was. So they're guilty of trying to have sex with someone they reasonably believed to have been of legal age. What sick bastards.

"The girl, now 14, testified she did not want to have sex with the men and tried to pull her pants back up when Mr. Brown pulled them down."

If this was true, then depending on what followed, attempted rape could have been the case. The jury, who heard all the evidence, unlike the people going apeshit over the dribs and drabs being released here on MeFi, and elsewhere, did not believe this to be the case, clearly from the verdict passed. It seems they believed that the men genuinely thought the girl was of legal age, and that they did not either rape her, or attempt to rape her.

Everyone was aware there was a jury on this case, listening to and sifting through all the evidence and testimonies, rather than just some "out-of-touch" judge, handing down a sentence, yes?
posted by Blue Stone at 11:40 AM on September 12, 2003

thank god those men escaped this disgusting, lust-driven assault alive.
posted by quonsar at 11:56 AM on September 12, 2003

12yr old= an impressionable, underdeveloped mind.

A 12 yr old after 5 beers= an extremely suceptable and vulnerable person.

Regardless of emotional baggage, it's rape.

[This is bad]
posted by Quixoticlife at 12:46 PM on September 12, 2003

You mean, the "out of touch" judge who had been a defence lawyer in the Pamela Jean George case, where two young men beat a Cree woman to death back in 1985? As I said in my first post in this thread, in both court cases, the victims were accused of partially being responsible for what happened to them.

Pamela Jean George was a prostitute and a member of the Sakimay First Nation and was approached by one man for a "date" while the other hid in the trunk of the car. Both men were heavily drinking and demanded oral sex from her. They then started beating her and she died from cerebral hemorrhaging. The judge in the George case instructed the jury to keep in mind that she was "indeed a prostitute" when considering whether she consented to sexual assault. Both men were convicted of manslaughter, rather than murder.

I question Kovatch's conduct in the 12 year old girl's case as it seems to me that he believes that Aboriginal women who are sexually assaulted are asking for it.
posted by KathyK at 1:01 PM on September 12, 2003

"Everyone was aware there was a jury on this case, listening to and sifting through all the evidence and testimonies, rather than just some "out-of-touch" judge, handing down a sentence, yes?"

Now there you go, ruining a perfectly good moral outrage with facts again. Don't you know this cannot be allowed?


It's just a shame we have to bother with trials at all ya know?

posted by soulhuntre at 1:08 PM on September 12, 2003

On preview, Kathy K's third link [!!!] states "that he then held her for his two friends" Though it's not stated whether the nature of this holding was to restrain a girl who wanted to get away, or whether it was a non-abusive holding.

Blue Stone, what the hell else would "for his two friends" mean? For them to take a picture?

You seem to be expending a great deal of effort, and a great many words, to find one angle or another through which this can be seen as defensible. Makes one wonder.
posted by soyjoy at 2:03 PM on September 12, 2003

Ok, I give up.

I hear Walmart's got a special on pitchforks and flamable torches, you guys. Knock yourselves out.

Metafilter - Death To Paediatricians!
posted by Blue Stone at 2:04 PM on September 12, 2003

Yeah, that's it... it was all just a big verbal misunderstanding. Classic.
posted by soyjoy at 2:24 PM on September 12, 2003

Well done Soyjoy for trying to imply I'm a paedophile because of the position I'm taking on this [very enlightening] thread. I don't know if there's an award for most crass assault on a fellow poster, but if one is ever implemented, I'll lobby to have it named in honour of you.

I guess, since my position is similar to the judge and jury on the case, that makes them paedophiles too.

You silly sod.
posted by Blue Stone at 2:31 PM on September 12, 2003

Blue Stone: [w]hy was the perpetrator convicted of sexual assault and not rape? Nowhere in the article does it state that she was raped.

Just a quick FYI. In Canada, the term 'rape' is no longer in legal use. Instead (and more inclusively), any unwanted contact of a sexual nature is refered to as sexual assault (see here and here); however, as the first link illustrates, there are different 'levels' of sexual assault
posted by lumiere at 2:39 PM on September 12, 2003

Blue Stone:

Let's put aside the age issue for a minute and look at the amount of alcohol consumed. 5 beers in an 89 pound body. I'm an adult woman of average weight and 5 beers would severely impair my judgement. I can't imagine the impact on somone so young and small - I bet she barely knew her own name after 5 beers.

Now, back to the age issue. 12 year old are not known for their impeccable reasoning skills. Even a relatively streetwise 12 year old would probably not be making very wise and sound judgement - hence the whole "I'm going to run away and go to Hollywood to be a movie star" Sunset Boulevard street kid logic.

12 girl+5 beers + age related judgement skills +3 horny guys over the age of 21+ attempt to remove clothing and have intercourse said 12 year old girl who is resisting= rape

And I am so fucking tired of the "How was I to know she was 'age X'? She looked 'age Y'. What am I supposed to do - check her ID?"

Yeah, you should check ID - I always do (or did when I was single). Saved my ass on two occasions - a 16 yr old boy who said he was 21 and a 15 yr old who said he was 18.

You just do the "Wanna look at each other's goofy-looking driver's licence/ID picture? Mine is so bad it's funny! C'mon, I'll show you mine if you show me yours" Works like a charm - and if the person you picked up turns out to be a complete psycho criminal type, at least you have a name to go with the face.
posted by echolalia67 at 2:57 PM on September 12, 2003

That was supposed to say"have intercourse with said 12 year old girl who is resisting"
posted by echolalia67 at 2:59 PM on September 12, 2003

Now, back to the age issue. 12 year old are not known for their impeccable reasoning skills.

Nor are 18 year olds. So?
posted by wackybrit at 4:03 PM on September 12, 2003

Yeah, you should check ID - I always do (or did when I was single).
you can't be serious.

What I know about law is very little but surely if someone says they are a certain age, then they give up the rights as far as protection against under age children goes. If a person says they are a certain age, dont you have every right to believe them, else it could lead to entrapment.
posted by carfilhiot at 5:21 PM on September 12, 2003

oh yeah and soyjoy - i've got to concur, low blow indeed.
posted by carfilhiot at 5:23 PM on September 12, 2003

What I know about law is very little but surely if someone says they are a certain age, then they give up the rights as far as protection against under age children goes. If a person says they are a certain age, dont you have every right to believe them, else it could lead to entrapment.

Nope, sorry, try again. Think about it: anyone accused of statutory rape (US terms here) could just say that the victim lied about his/her age and be off the hook. It's not a legal defense. Also, entrapment is widely misunderstood -- it's perfectly legal, for instance, for a police officer to pose as a prostitute and arrest anyone who offers to pay him or her for sex.

Also, where the hell did you people come up with that interpretation of what soyjoy said? S/he was clearly referring to the issue, not to BlueStone.
posted by blissbat at 5:44 PM on September 12, 2003

carfihiot - you are sooo wrong, legally speaking. They successfully prosecute plenty of "But she said she was 18..." cases. To state an example, the legal system would still put a heroin dealer in prison even if, somehow, that person did not know it was illegal to sell it. I think there is a saying (which I'm mangling probably) that ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.

What's so ludicrous about getting a little extra info on someone you are considering having sex with? It's called being responsible.

Quite frankly, I'm shocked that anyone would have sex with someone without at least making sure that the person in question is who they say they are. Knowing the basic stats and contact info could be very useful in the event you get knocked up or suddenly develop an extremely uncomfortable, genital eroding STD.

And as far as what SoyJoy said to Blue Stone - I think what Soy was getting at was that (s)he, along with much of the western world, find the idea of getting a 12 yr old drunk and trying to have sex with her against her will so abhorrent to the point of being indefensible. Soy seemed perplexed at what seems to be his/her defense of the judge's and jury's decision-making. As for the ablility of a jury to weigh evidence and come to a well-reasoned decision, I've got a two words for you to consider: Dan White. (FYI: here's a link to the legal definition of "insanity" in case you think his sentence was just)

wackybrit - yes, but the average 18 year old has 6 extra years under their belt to suss out the ways of the world and, theoretically at least, develop some critical thinking skills. Don't tell me that you believe that there is no difference between the reasoning skills of a typical 12 year old compared to that of an typical 18 year old.
posted by echolalia67 at 6:05 PM on September 12, 2003

Doh!

Here's the link to the legal definition of insanity (go to 2nd paragraph, read through to the 4th)

/derail
posted by echolalia67 at 6:23 PM on September 12, 2003

I bet she barely knew her own name after 5 beers.

Haven't spent much time on the res', have you?

I know how that sounds, but I've got to say that I grew up in a small Canadian town that was split in population approximately 50/50 between folks on the reserve (where the alcohol and drug abuse, if not the incest, rape and murder, served as an inspiration to me to this very day) and whitebreads in the town proper (where the same sort of thing went on, of course, just to less intense degree), and stories like this, lenient sentencing included, were a dime a dozen. That doesn't make these three guys any less deserving of being strung up by their nuts, or the judge any less deserving of a good beating, but that's the way it is, day in day out, at least where I'm from, and clearly in small-town Saskatchewan as well. Effete wrangling over 'age of consent' is a little pathetic, to be honest.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:25 PM on September 12, 2003

To clarify... I was commenting on the fact that to some of us the notion of three guys plying a 12-year-old with beer and attempting to sexually assault her, with at least one of them holding her for the others, is patently reprehensible, yet Blue Stone was jumping from one argument to another in increasingly desperate attempts to say we're blowing it out of proportion (No answer, for example, was ever forthcoming on what that alternate interpretation of "holding her for his two firends" is). So it literally does make one wonder what is motivating Blue Stone to take up such a contrarian position.

The implication was not "Blue Stone, you're a paedophile" ( or "rapist," as soulhuntre has summarized on another thread he feels is related - the "20 questions about 9/11" (?) thread) but "I can't figure out where you're coming from with this, and why it seems so important to you; so I wonder if you have some issues about it that are driving you to look for anything to excuse these guys." If that came across as "you're really a paedophile," I disavow that meaning and will try to be clearer in the future.
posted by soyjoy at 7:57 PM on September 12, 2003

I'll echo StavrosTWC here. There is no doubt that the judge is a bigoted idiot who should be removed from the court. Fact is, though, that he is truly representative of common attitudes throughout Canada.

Yes. Canada has an ugly racist streak.

I've little doubt this kid is the same as others I've seen -- addicted, abused, and self-destructive. And I can well imagine what the creeps were like: a bunch of smalltown rednecks cruising for any chance to fuck anything, and the darker the skin the more they can get away with.

I wouldn't doubt that she was sexually aggressive, looking to either validate her pain or grab a few bucks for drugs or booze. I wouldn't doubt they were sexually aggressive, looking for a female to abuse for their sick fantasies or to satisfy some warped sense of vengence against women.

Further, it wouldn't surprise me if these weren't the first guys she's screwed with for money, nor she the first they abused for kicks.

In short, it's just a plain ugly little set piece, with everyone playing a full role in what happened. Not a one of them is at a level of self-awareness that would allow them to change their behaviours: the kid is going to end up OD'd or beat to death, the rednecks will end up wrapping their truck around a power pole or getting themselves killed by mouthing off the wrong fellow, the judge will slowly petrify in a past that has no place in the present.

If we had our shit together up here, maybe at least the kid would stand a chance. Ain't gonna happen.

The problem lies far, far deeper than age of consent. It's got nothing to do with pedophilia. It's got nothing to do with beer.

It's a dinosaur of a judge. It's a bunch of cowardly bullies who beat up tiny females. It's a kid that's irrepairably broken. Toss them together and you get what you got.

The easy answers aren't real answers, and the real answers are deeply difficult to implement.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:02 PM on September 12, 2003

FFF, what you have said is quite true, and I'm too depressed by it to be able to think of anything more to add.
posted by orange swan at 8:34 PM on September 12, 2003

I hate to admit it, but FFF is probably 100% right on this. It's fucking depressing. I wish there was something we could do, but frankly I saw a lot of folk when I worked in the mental health system who were products of this kind of enviornment with more coming down the pike. It's a stream of misery that is near impossible to swim against. God bless those who are strong enough to fight the good fight... I certainly wasn't one of them.

I'm going off to cleanse my mental palette with some low-brow humor.
posted by echolalia67 at 11:37 PM on September 12, 2003

Where am I coming from, soyjoy, here, I'll tell you.

As far as what is said to have happened is concerned, and allowing for the less than full disclosure I feel the articles present, I'd say one of two things. Either the three men were trying to rape a girl that they at least believed to be of legal age, but failed due to their inebriation. Or they were just trying to have sex with a girl they believed to be of legal age, who didn't try to stop them, and without intimidation or force, and she reported it as assualt.

If it was the former, then the sentences the men recieved, are seriously inadequate. If the latter, then I think the sentence they got was actually too harsh.

I reject your charactirisation of my points as "desperate." To counter, I'd say your points are malicious, and that includes your retraction, which I don't accept as valid or truthful.

Several facts seem prominent for me; the girl had semen from the father in her underwear. He was having sex with his own daughter; he knew she was underage, unlike the men; the abusive father was outraged that the men had been treated leniently.

No real account is given of the girl's plight, though it is assumed by many people in this thread. 2+2=5. "Holding" someone can mean many things, which is conveniently skipped over as you soyjoy, and others trip over yoursleves to condemn these men of rape [though no penetration whatsoever took place.] The lack of the girl's account, and of any mention of force, restraint ["held" may mean that and it may not] seems irrelevant to those whose charges I'm countering [the mere effort of which is enough to cast suspicion on me by you soyjoy.]

All in all, I don't think men who reasonably believe they are dealing with a female, or male, of legal age, should suffer punishment. If, in addition, the sex isn't forced, though the girl is subsequently found to be underage, I don't see the matter as worthy of a jail term. In this situation, the only person fucking the young girl was the outraged father.

I think the judge and jury were essentially correct. And I find the string-em-up" mentality whenever a topic like this comes up, deeply disturbing, which is why I countered it.

As for the accuasations of rascism, they seem bogus to me, especially where they're coming from; the abusive father, and the relatives who seem to have accepeted his abusiveness, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
posted by Blue Stone at 7:24 AM on September 13, 2003

Think about it: anyone accused of statutory rape (US terms here) could just say that the victim lied about his/her age and be off the hook.
I'm not arguing for or against this court decision, but just to nitpick on this point, in this instance the person admits that she told them she was 15. There is no dispute there.

soyjoy
So it literally does make one wonder what is motivating Blue Stone to take up such a contrarian position.
Uhm, no it doesn't, this is Metafilter FGS! and "makes one wonder" as a sentence, has got to be the most vomit inducing statement ever invented, direct from the annals of Salem.
posted by carfilhiot at 8:44 AM on September 13, 2003

I remain unconvinced that this story has been fully told by the news media.

Anecdotal I know, but I became sexually active in the "let's play doctor" sense at 7 with a group that included another boy and three girls, aged 6 to 9 at the time. This led to touching, finger insertions and oral sex. Although we boys were too young to achieve orgasm, we did get erections. I first experienced sexual intercourse when I was 12 with a girl who was also 12.

For those of you who think that all 12 year olds are immature sexually, you are very wrong and you should probably try looking at this from that perspective, rather than just the 'outraged adult, think of the children, don't blame the victims who never lie' closed-minded PC bullshit mindset.
posted by mischief at 9:16 AM on September 13, 2003

personal question, reply at your discretion: were you sexually abused as a child, mischief?
posted by five fresh fish at 10:35 AM on September 13, 2003

I am from Saskatchewan and the media and law experts here are all saying the Judge was totally wrong in judgement and comments. It will be overturned in appeal.
posted by Coop at 11:50 AM on September 13, 2003

Blue Stone: All in all, I don't think men who reasonably believe they are dealing with a female, or male, of legal age, should suffer punishment. If, in addition, the sex isn't forced, though the girl is subsequently found to be underage, I don't see the matter as worthy of a jail term.

I would agree if the adult in question can prove that (s)he made a good faith effort to determine whether or not his/her partner was of age and competent to consent to sex.

There was a case here in California a few years back when a runaway 15 year old was found shacking up with a 25 year old guy. The authorities determined that he genuinely did not know the girl's true age - she had a fake ID, which she showed the guy, that said that she was 21. Obviously, that's a case where he could not have reasonably known that she was underage. I think, in that situation, the authorities made the right call.
posted by echolalia67 at 11:56 AM on September 13, 2003

personal question, reply at your discretion: were you sexually abused as a child, mischief?

I don't know, fff, it's sort of received wisdom of TV news that sex abuse leads to sex abusers but there's a wide span of opinion on the topic in sociological circles, depending on their tilt, all with their own sets of statistics. I do believe that sometimes child sex abuse leads to sexual acting out by the victims but sexual activity between children is not always due to this. Plenty of adults I know played doctor when they were kids and went through all the same motions as in mischief's report and they weren't sexually abused as children and aren't fucked up now.

This notion that children are innocents as in asexual little angels and have utterly no interest in sex is a social construction. Children are interested in everything, even sex--they just aren't driven by hormones. Naturally I have to insert the standard provisos here that this is not an endorsement of adults and children having sex, which is just wrong for so many reasons, nor is it excusing the men in this case--it's just my opinion that child to child sexual contact is not inherently pathological.
posted by y2karl at 1:01 PM on September 13, 2003

y2karl = mischief?

my question, btw, has nothing to do with this thread, but a recent mefi exchange in another thread.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:01 PM on September 13, 2003

ah... Well, I was going by what was written here and just tossing in my two bits on what mischief had written. Which was really gutsy--I could never open up like that here. I wasn't reading anything into what you said or trying to lecture--if it sounded that way, I'm sorry--it's so hard to tell what people are saying or asking sometimes. I must say, by the way, that stavros's and your comments were the next most interesting comments here--for some reason I always thought things were better for the native population in Canada than here and now I see it's just as complicated and bad as here.
posted by y2karl at 5:48 PM on September 13, 2003

FFF said it very well indeed, and captured the reality of the situation perfectly. Kudos.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:58 PM on September 13, 2003

mischief - For those of you who think that all 12 year olds are immature sexually, you are very wrong and you should probably try looking at this from that perspective, rather than just the 'outraged adult, think of the children, don't blame the victims who never lie' closed-minded PC bullshit mindset.

This was covered in another thread, I know. But since other folks find it appropriate to reference, I'd like to make comments related to the earlier thread.

Here's why I have my opinion regarding adult/adolescent sexual relationships:

1. I took about 18 units of Human Sexuality courses in college and most of the data seems to suggest that intergenerational sex, in general, is a negative experience for the younger partner. The department was not at all puritanical or sex-negative - it was pretty much on the bleeding-edge. For example, Nina Hartley lectured one semester and was allowed to sell her videos in the lobby after class.

I also learned that children are sexually curious and often masturbate to orgasm even as infants. I believe, (and the data suggests) that it's normal and healthy for kids to engage in consensual sexual activities with one another. So don't try to hang the "outraged adult, think of the children, don't blame the victims who never lie' closed-minded PC bullshit mindset" tag on me.

2. At 15 I started dating men who were, on average, about 7 or 8 years older than me. Most of my friends were also dating men who were significantly older than they were. For the most part, the relationships ended up being emotionally and physically abusive and exploitative in the " coercing your 14 yr old girlfriend to participate in a gang bang and throwing her in front of a moving train during an argument" kind of way (not me, thankfully - I just have a long-term, long-distance stalker who thinks we were destined to be together). We were all bright, well-spoken, middle class girls from decent, caring families - not at all the stereotype of the teenage girl from an abusive home who gets into abusive relationships.

Even my first love, who I'm still in touch with and have very warm feelings for (he was and still is one of the nicest, most decent, most caring people I know), acknowledges that it was bad judgement on his part to get involved with a 15 year old and that he had an unfair advantage, emotionally speaking, in the relationship which turned out to be harmful to me in the long run. This is anecdotal evidence I know, but at least I can confidently say that I have first hand knowledge on the subject.

It's perfectly okay for kids to engage in sexual activities...with each other. It is normal for someone to find an adolescent attractive. Still, the decent thing to do is to either back off or keep the relationship platonic until the younger person has enough life experience, (not to mention sexual experience with someone who is a chronological and emotional peer) to handle being an equal partner in an adult relationship.
posted by echolalia67 at 7:22 PM on September 13, 2003

5fish: Nope.
posted by mischief at 8:58 PM on September 13, 2003

"Holding" someone can mean many things, which is conveniently skipped over as you soyjoy, and others trip over yoursleves to condemn these men of rape [though no penetration whatsoever took place.] The lack of the girl's account, and of any mention of force, restraint ["held" may mean that and it may not] seems irrelevant to those whose charges I'm countering [the mere effort of which is enough to cast suspicion on me by you soyjoy.]

First off, how am I to interpret the constant bolding of my name? Should I hear you saying it with some kind of sarcastic sneer or just extra-loud as though to get my attention? Again, just wondering.

But back to the point, "desperate" is exactly the word for this latest BS. "The lack of the girl's account," you say?

The girl, now 14, testified she did not want to have sex with the men and tried to pull her pants back up when Mr. Brown pulled them down.

How the hell do you get off calling that "the lack of the girl's account?" Since you already cited this, you can't even claim you hadn't noticed that the girl's account is that she was sexually assaulted. Now, if you want to disregard that and say she's a liar, fine; say so. But as far as attempted rape, that's all the "account" necessary from the victim to provide. What did you want, her description of how the beer tasted or what she was arguing about with her mother? Incredible.

And there's no "mention of force, restraint ["held" may mean that and it may not]"? Again, as has been covered, yes indeed there is:

By Mr. Edmondson's own description in court, he tried to have sex with her. The court also heard that he then held her for his two friends to do so.

For the third time, I ask you - what is your mysterious alternative reading of that phrase "her for his two friends to do so" that somehow doesn't mean forcible restraint? You have yet to provide even one possible example. (Talk about "conveniently skipped over"!) In the absence of any alternative, sorry, but the common-sense interpretation (especially in view of the larger context and the other testimony) prevails.

And frankly, the common-sense view of most people on this thread still prevails - that it's reprehensible and indefensible for three grown men to ply an 89-pound 12-year-old with alcohol and attempt to rape her, no matter who may have raped her already. If you want to counter that view - and I still don't get why it's so important to you to do so - you're going to need to do more than attack me; you're going to need to address the facts at hand, which I'm waiting for you to do.
posted by soyjoy at 9:29 PM on September 13, 2003

mischief: Aha. Figured so. Betcha it's a lot more common than most people will 'fess up to. It's far easier to pretend that sex isn't the dominant driving force in life. Even in kids.

Anyway, enough of that derailment. Thx.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:52 PM on September 13, 2003

5: I have always been open about my past, and I have talked to many of my friends through the intervening decades. Not only does my experience appear to be common, but I was surprised at how many admitted to brother-sister explorations. Although no one has ever admitted actual sibling intercourse, I know a good number of people who admit to going as far as oral stimulation.

Hardly scientific, but my estimate is 2-5% of all college educated people who like to sit around bullshitting and getting very drunk in small groups of 3 to 6 will admit to sucking off her brother or going down on his sister. Somehow I just don't see this as being something one would lie about no matter how inebriated.
posted by mischief at 4:12 AM on September 14, 2003

But if we review the above quotes, none of them actually were able to complete the act. How does it qualify as "one on the more severe end of the spectrum?" Would not a rape that actually was comitted/completed be more "severe" then one that was not actually completed?

Not necessarily, unless you think penetration is the absolute worst thing that can happen to someone. What, for example, would be worse - being kicked, spat on and humiliated as well as sexually abused, or simply being penetrated? (hypothetical example)

FFF said it very well indeed, and captured the reality of the situation perfectly. Kudos.

With all due respect Stavros and FFF, you don't know any better than anyone else what went on. She's from a certain kind of background therefore this is how it must have been? It's that kind of thinking that leads to wrong-headed judgements like this.
posted by Summer at 2:53 AM on September 15, 2003

She is a hard-drinking, father-raped, cum-dripping twelve year old girl. They are hard-drinking, woman-abusing, bigotted morons. The judge is an old, prejudiced fart without the common sense to retire.

Pray tell, what part of this scenario do you think I got wrong? And what's your easy answer to the whole mess?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:44 AM on September 15, 2003

Pray tell, what part of this scenario do you think I got wrong?

Er, dunno? Don't know her, wasn't there. Neither were you, nor do you have access to the evidence.

And what's your easy answer to the whole mess?

Can't remember saying I had one. The crime's been committed, all the girl can get at this stage is a bit of impartial justice, something she doesn't seem to be getting from either the judicial system or anyone else. Poor cow.
posted by Summer at 9:58 AM on September 15, 2003